CLARK+COUNTY+SCHOOL+DISTRICT+v.+BREEDEN

Eric Miller & Kristee Glace CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT //v.// BREEDEN Decided April 23, 2001 At a meeting with respondent and a male employee to review job applicants' psychological evaluation reports, respondent's male supervisor read aloud a sexually explicit remark that one applicant had made to a co-worker, looked at respondent, and stated, "I don't know what that means." The other employee replied, "Well, I'll tell you later," and both men chuckled. Respondent complained about the comment to the offending supervisor and other officials of their employer, petitioner Clark County School District. She subsequently filed a lawsuit in retaliation claim against petitioner, asserting that she was punished for these complaints and also for filing charges against petitioner with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and for filing the present suit. Respondent's claims are insufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion. No one could reasonably believe that the incident of which respondent complained violated Title VII. Sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII only if it is so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in employment terms and conditions. The actions of respondent's supervisor and co-worker are at worst an isolated incident that cannot remotely be considered "extremely serious." Regarding respondent's claim that she was punitively transferred for filing charges and the present suit, she failed to show the requisite causal connection between her protected activities and the transfer. Petitioner did not implement the transfer until 20 months after respondent filed her charges, and it was contemplating the transfer before it learned of her suit. One enormous implication that this case demonstrated is that although teachers are not surrounded by students, comments that contain adult humor cannot be said in the workplace. Although it was a necessary to discuss the actions of the possible candidate, it shouldn’t be discussed or laughed about in a professional environment.
 * Summary**
 * Decision**
 * Implications**
 * Question:** Would the discussion be considered offensive if the other male wouldn’t have laughed?

Posted by: Joc'Lene Alston

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Clark County School District

V.

Breeden

Decided: April 23, 2001

At a meeting with respondent and a male employeed to review job applicate's phsychological evaluation reports, a male supervisor read a sexually explicit remark aloud that an applicant had said to a co-worker. The male supervisor then looked at the respondent and stated, "I don't know what that means." Another employee repied, "Well, I'll tell you later." The exchange were made by males and they both chuckled. The respondent then complained to the offending supervisor and the other officials of their employer, petitioner Clarrk County School District. The female respondent then filed a retaliation claim against the petitioner, asserting that she was punished for complaining and for filing charges against the petitioner with the Nevada Equal rights Commision and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and for filing the present suit. The district court granted the petitioner summary judgement, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the decison.
 * Background:**

The respondent's claim was insufficient to withstand a summary judgement motion. No one could reasonably beleive that the incident of which repondent complained violated Title VII. Sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII only if it is so severe or persuasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Regarding repondent's claim that she was punitively transferred for filing chatges and the present suit, she failed to show the requisite causal connection between her protected activities and the transfer. Petitioner did not implement the transfer until 20 months after the respondent filed charges, and it was contemplating the transer before it learned of her suit.
 * Decision and Rational:**

Teachers and administrators should definitely be are of the the things that are said at the workplace. Many behaviors that are deemed acceptable by some are not always acceptable to all. Teacher should be careful and be tactful and approachable.
 * Impact on Teaching:**

Question Do you think there would be a suit if the joking offenders were female?